John M. Richmond V. Authority Case Summary
I. John M. Richmond v. State of Iowa, 97-954
(Plaintiff John M. Richmond) v. (Defendant the State of Iowa)
II. Procedural History
Defendant John M. Richmond and partner Robyn Krell were in an intimate relationship. Once the relationship ended, Richmond appeared at Krell’s residence and forced her to have sex with him while holding a knife in his hand. Richmond called his hired counselor, Fr. Dick Osing for counseling on the incident. Richmond was charged with second-degree sexual abuse. Richmond appealed stating that his priest-penitent privilege or the counselor=client privilege was violated. The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed that Richmond’s admissions were not privileged.
III. Facts
Evidentiary privilege in the State of Iowa is …show more content…
Necessary and proper for the discharge of the function of the person’s office.
IV. Issues
Whether or not it was a reversible error to receive evidence of admissions by the accused recited in a conversation with a clergyman/counselor.
V. Ruling and Reasoning
The court agrees that there is error in Richmond’s claim that his statement given to Fr. Osing in the concluding capacity as a priest.
Richmond didn’t consult Fr. Osing as a priest.
Richmond stated that he consulted Fr. Osing for advice on his relationship with Krell.
Fr. Osing testified he was under the same impression, therefore causing the claim of priest-penitent privilege to fail.
VI. Dissenting or Concurring Opinion
Dissenting
i. The State of Iowa has strict guidelines on who can qualify as a “counselor” under Iowa Code section 622.10.Fr. Osing admitted that he did not have a license in the State of Iowa to be a marriage and family therapist. Informal unlicensed counseling doesn’t apply. Richmond failed to prove that he entitled to rely on Fr. Osing keeping their counseling session in professional confidence. Richmond failed to state his case regarding the breach of statutory privilege.
Works Cited
Schubert, F. (2009). Introduction to Law (9thth ed., pp. 212-213). Mason, Oh: Cenage
(Plaintiff John M. Richmond) v. (Defendant the State of Iowa)
II. Procedural History
Defendant John M. Richmond and partner Robyn Krell were in an intimate relationship. Once the relationship ended, Richmond appeared at Krell’s residence and forced her to have sex with him while holding a knife in his hand. Richmond called his hired counselor, Fr. Dick Osing for counseling on the incident. Richmond was charged with second-degree sexual abuse. Richmond appealed stating that his priest-penitent privilege or the counselor=client privilege was violated. The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed that Richmond’s admissions were not privileged.
III. Facts
Evidentiary privilege in the State of Iowa is …show more content…
Necessary and proper for the discharge of the function of the person’s office.
IV. Issues
Whether or not it was a reversible error to receive evidence of admissions by the accused recited in a conversation with a clergyman/counselor.
V. Ruling and Reasoning
The court agrees that there is error in Richmond’s claim that his statement given to Fr. Osing in the concluding capacity as a priest.
Richmond didn’t consult Fr. Osing as a priest.
Richmond stated that he consulted Fr. Osing for advice on his relationship with Krell.
Fr. Osing testified he was under the same impression, therefore causing the claim of priest-penitent privilege to fail.
VI. Dissenting or Concurring Opinion
Dissenting
i. The State of Iowa has strict guidelines on who can qualify as a “counselor” under Iowa Code section 622.10.Fr. Osing admitted that he did not have a license in the State of Iowa to be a marriage and family therapist. Informal unlicensed counseling doesn’t apply. Richmond failed to prove that he entitled to rely on Fr. Osing keeping their counseling session in professional confidence. Richmond failed to state his case regarding the breach of statutory privilege.
Works Cited
Schubert, F. (2009). Introduction to Law (9thth ed., pp. 212-213). Mason, Oh: Cenage